Marriage to underage girls was more common before the 20th century. It didn’t become absolute taboo until relatively recently. That’s probably why it wasn’t brought up til now
2 Likes
Everybody gets this. It’s a non issue.
Pushing a negative stance while refusing to integrate feedback = trolling. This is the OP’s entire shtick notwithstanding the remonstrations of “i’m only asking” “i’m just saying”
Everybody gets what?
What negative stance is being pushed? Do some people push that Muhammad did not have sex with a 9 year old?
Who did not integrate feedback? All feedback, as I’ve read, was integrated and addressed, in particular when it didn’t make a difference to the topic at hand (for example, when talking about standards).
It’s amazing what your imagined person thinks and feels, but it’s out of the topic at hand.
The “that is not the case” cannot be established without proofs. Only with proofs, according to the legal notion of proofs, you can establish truth or untruth of a statement in the real world. Thus, as long as there are no proofs, it remains defamation.
Also, how can we know that you did not know? Just asking you does not resolve anything. Again, we have to rely on the proofs you had to support the claim.
If you are going to say that I am mixing legality with ethics or morality, I will answer that, as an Epicurean materialist and subjectivist, I need solid contemporary base for morality (or ethics, as you want to call it) and not idealistic standards, unable to be established.
To proceed with my questions
I keep your conclusion that defamation is not ethical.
So, by commiting defamation, one performs an unethical act. In our example, the unethical act is related to question the ethics of a person.
Now that is confusing to me. Perform unethical act by posing ethical question. What can we say about this situation? What should come as priority, the initial unethical action, or the ethical question? Should the defamer keep asking the ethical question and consequently continue acting unethically?
Yes, I assume that’s a question about legality and so. That is what is considered ‘defamation’ legally. The real world is not the same as the legal definitions, at all. I’d say they’re mostly apart, since legality is about convincing someone, not if something is true. It’s very different something being defamation than something being declared as defamation.
What is legal or not makes no difference tho.
Well, if you are subjectivist, you are inserting yourself into stuff out of your very own defined scope. This is not about subjective stuff. You may read it as such, but it’s not about it.
Ethics can very well be researched upon, they don’t need to be a standard of any sorts.
Well, that’s confusing to me too. I got lost into the tacit meanings of that. I don´t know if we are talking about Muhammad potentially having sex with a 9 year old, you making a newspaper article stating that I’m a pedophile or what.
Again, the question is not a statement, so it’s not defamation. It would be quite different if it was stated as “Where did Muhammad have sex with a 9 year old?” . In that case, a statement of fact was embedded in the question, but it’s not the case.
The question is about ethics, for sure. I don’t know if that makes it an ‘ethical question’
OK l must apologise for saying you were calling people “pedo defender” and saying in turn you are “pedoai”.
It was other correspondents doing that.
In any case my religion forbids trash talk. I need to phrase people’s insecurities and ironies more generally (objectively), which is hard to do when they are attacking the soul of our Prophet (i.e. being subjective) and thus the soul of us all.
Also l know you to tell persistent lies despite replies. E.g. saying we circumcise babies, and that this is mutilation. False on both counts.
I may come back to this later,
1 Like
‘‘Male circumcision is a widely practiced, deeply rooted tradition in Islam, considered a sunnah (prophet’s tradition) and part of fitrah (natural hygiene/cleanliness). While not mentioned in the Quran, it is strongly encouraged for hygiene and to follow the tradition of Prophet Abraham. Rates in Muslim nations are nearly 90–100%.’’
I don’t know why people believe only Jews are circumcised. Just stupid I suppose…
Definition of Defamation, according to wikipedia
Defamation is a communication that injures a third party’s reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are false, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation such as dignity and honour.
Communication can include question that damages someone’s reputation. Questioning in public if someone is pedophile can damage the person’s reputation in the real world. You choose to narrow the definition to suit your needs.
I do not think there is any reason to continue responding to you in this thread. As you said, it has objectivity claims that do not interest me.
Depends on the perspective.
From their perspective ofc they do.
From your perspective: What you do not know is invisible to you. You do not know it.
The point i was trying to make is that our factual knowledge about things happening thousands of years ago is basically nil. We have myths, legends, information that often traded a thousand hands, and even first hand records would be just that: The understanding and comprehension of someone who lived thousands of years ago.
Its… worth considering, understanding, exploring. Sure. Everything is.
But its pretty much something to be taken with a silo’s worth of salt.
Try to unpack that. How is there a context under which context does not depend?
Thats kind of an oxymoron, but even if i were to humor you, that’d be simply an exception to the rule, not a refutation of it.
But just to make it clear: Everything IS context dependent since context is what specifies the subjective view of the observer.
When you perceive something, that is already subject to your interpretation of it. If anyone wants to understand why you came to that interpretation, they will need the context to/for it.
Im curious how you would circumvent context and subjectivity when its the essence of being an individual ego.
Because why?
What on earth does life contribute to the universe?
See? Thats an entirely subjective statement. You think the universe is better with life in it.
Personally i think neither the universe, nor anyone else cares whether or not there is life. Its such a curious statement. Who on earth would care if the universe would be empty of life?
I disagree, but i am happy to listen to your reasoning.
To me subjectivity is simply a fact of our very existence as individual entities, and concluding from that, context will always define the circumstances of an observation, statement, judgement, or even as little as an impression.
1 Like
@Carleas I suggest that this thread be trashed / relocated to “Rants”. I’m not averse to discussion and in fact l seek to create a similar thread and have also tried to get this debated formally.
However: the thread starter is a statement disguised as a question. From prior to-and-fro, the OP knows that it is overwhelmingly accepted as true.
The OP just posts a statement. Adding a question mark hardly ameliorates this. The OP is disingenuously avoiding giving a view or argument. Other threads have been locked or Rant subforumed for this, if l recall (e.g. RealUn’s thread about Iran) - l have no issue with that, but l think it would be consistent to do the same here.
When l have an entire day free l hope to make a proper thread about this, scrutinising arguments, presenting counterarguments - not just posting a statement (dogwhistle) and saying “l dindu nuffins”
We do not circumcise as babies, we do it as Isma’il (the firstborn) did (l think), at the very start of adulthood.
I went out with a 29-30 yr old woman when l was 17. I think more older women should date younger guys. Not just that, but also marry them. If they wish and if it is legal. As long as one is not in a “pastoral” role l mean a teacher-pupil relationship, that is unlawful. Bye.
‘’ Muslims generally circumcise boys shortly after birth (commonly the 7th day) or anytime before puberty,with age 7 being a popular, though not mandatory, tradition. While there is no fixed age in Islamic scripture, it is considered a crucial, often celebrated, symbol of faith.‘’
From the London circumcision center website.
''Age of Circumcision
The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) recommended performing circumcision at an early age.
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), circumcision was done for male children at the time of their Aqiqah (a conventional celebration for the birth of a child, which involves the sacrifice of an animal in gratitude to Allah).
The Prophet (PBUH) performed the Aqiqah of al-Hasan and al-Hussein (the Prophet’s grandsons) and circumcised them on the seventh day, as narrated in al-Bayhaqi and Tabarani.
If it is essential, circumcision can be delayed due to medical reasons. Our annual audits showed that the ideal age of newborn circumcision is under 4 weeks.‘’
OK I stand corrected, and l think at birth sounds better.
This wasn’t something l challenged him on actually, l challenged him on the latter part: that it is mutilation. He persisted in calumnising nonetheless.
Google AI:
- Preferred Timing: Many Muslims prefer the seventh day after birth, though others may wait until the child is 7-10 years old.
- Cultural Variations: In Turkey and the Balkans, it is common to wait until ages 3-7. In Malaysia and other regions, it is often done between ages 10-12, serving as a transition to adulthood
.
Also note: my point is l think you feel insecure about your age hence you deflect and project 1,500 years into the past, not that l feel older women are ugly. My mother was beautiful even at 70.
In my culture we marry for life. Whether a spouse loses their hair or gets breast cancer, or whether the babies are born deformed (re: Zion Foster no longer feeling he has the “right energy” so splitting with his partner). It’s hard when females are encouraged to be always rising up against men, to then be single at over 30 and still need to attract a partner whenthe female hasn’t had a husband from the early days that sticks around forever. The female will now need to 1. stand out (makeup) and 2. suppress the competition (= your anachronistic and typically racist rants on this thread and elsewhere).
How many sock-puppets does it take for one butt-hurt apologist to get a post hidden? And how am I supposed to ‘edit’ it if I don’t know which comment it is? Could the butt-hurt apologist or one of his sock puppets kindly tell me which comment he had hidden?
Let’s address all the out of topic things:
How come some people here are attacking the soul of anyone?
So you percieve some of what I wrote as lies, it seems. Now, for something to be a lie, it must be a dishonest expression. Where do you think I was dishonest?
Who said Muslims circumcize babies? On the other hand, removing the foreskin is mutilation, for sure. Even self-mutilation - it’s not a subjective thing.
Again, you seem to be typing “L” instead of “I” on several places. For example: “l know you to tell”
@VictorMcCheeseEsq True? 90% of male muslims are circumcized? Prevalence of circumcision - Wikipedia Certainly, in Morocco it’s more than 99,9%, and 99,7% of Moroccans are muslims
@ghatzige well, then I say that such is wrong. To question is not to assert and nobody has responsibility on the incorrect interpretations of things. For example, to confuse a question for an assertion. You suppose I have some needs and I fit something to fit it, for sure.
I don’t know who you are referring to here but you said multiple times that muslims don’t circumcise (and this ONLY refers to boys. The ‘circumcision’ of girls is a barbaric muslim practice, and one which most definitely IS mutilation!).
1 Like
I explained in great detail that clitoris removal has no part in Islam (it is mainly Christian or pagan African tribal practices), but permission is given (not essential) to remove some skin from labia for hygiene. Also l never said boys do not circumcise.
Lay off the white dog poo, schmuck , it’s making you dizzy and tell lies. I always correct myself. You will go back on ignore if you do not stop snorting white dog poo. Stop that.
וְנִיטַּיְיפֵיהּ אַתְּלָת קִלְחֵי כְּרָבָא, וְנִיבְחֲשֵׁיהּ בִּגְווֹזָא דְּמַרְמְהִין; וְכִי בְּשִׁיל גְּווֹזָא דְמַרְמָהִין – בְּשִׁיל לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ. וְאִי לָא – לַיְתֵי נִפְקָא דְּכַלְבָּא חִיוָּרָא, וְנִיגְבּוֹל בְּנִטְפָא. וְכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר – נִפְקָא לָא נֵיכוֹל, דִּמְפָרֵיק.
and let him drip it on three stalks of cabbage and stir it with a sprig from a marjoram bush. And when the sprig of marjoram is boiled all of it will be boiled. And if he is not able to do that,
let him take the feces of a white dog and let him mix it with balm. And as much as possible let him not eat the feces because it causes the separation of the limbs.
You called someone a liar for saying muslims circumcise babies. I was simply correcting you. No need to get all abusive, faux muslim.
2 Likes
So, someone accusing you as a liar is abusive.
You, calling others child-rape apologists is Sunday morning.
1 Like